Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I contributed the following rant. My take on another POV. Interested in comments and thoughts:

What people don't realize is that in aikido the "control techniques" such as what appear to be wrist and joint locks, make a up a very small part of the art. What makes up a huge part - say 90% - is atemi.

Wrist locks are an add-on, and not even central to aiki. Aiki can be seen in the initial movement. The opponents center is taken, and the opponent is struck - all in a single movement. And in this way, there is not ever an actual opponent in the mindset of aiki - but merely another player.

Real aiki can be seen in the tai sabaki (body movement). Typically, but not always, an effective application moves off the line at about 10-degrees. In the zone, the oncoming opponent can not deliver any strikes, kicks, or anything else. And they are rendered off-balance, and are totally open to multiple strikes, kicks, body movements by nage.

Sometimes the line is taken by nage as uke is in the process of creating it. As soon as uke commits to a movement, they begin creating a line. Nage senses this, and moves after the line starts to be created, and arrives before the line is finished by uke. Uke starts the line, nage finishes it. That is aiki. You don't have to be fast - just be before.

Another aspect of aiki, is that it doesn't use large muscle groups for movement and power. Aiki uses hips and relaxation to not only generate compressed power outwardly, but also to allow for an incoming compression - to be able to receive strikes to the body.

There's a reason why Steven Seagal has been training top MMA fighters. There are various arts that employ aiki, including some CMA and Indonesian arts. Muhammad Ali met Kali players in Hawaii. Same thing. Music actually employs aiki, as it allows a place for multiple events and energy vibrations to co-exist in space/time harmoniously.

The reason people don't think aikido works, is because most people don't know what real aikido is. And the reason most people don't think they see aiki used in boxing and MMA, is because most people have no idea what to look for. If you know what to look for, you can see aiki applied all over the place at the top levels of competition.

The reason people don't think aikido works, is because most people don't know what real aikido is. And the reason most people don't think they see aiki used in boxing and MMA, is because most people have no idea what to look for. If you know what to look for, you can see aiki applied all over the place at the top levels of competition.

I absolutely agree.

Anderson Silva uses aiki and outclasses professional fighters... and is getting better at age 38!

As a pointer to seeing it, I would suggest to look for "non-randomness."

-Michael
"Through aiki we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately." - M. Mochizuki

Some of the absolute best striking martial artists in the world are perhaps the most proficient "demonstrators" of the aiki, if you don't mind my creating a word for my own benefit.

Think of Iron Mike Tyson during the prime of his career, and if necessary, go to youtube to bring up some of his early fight videos. Do you ever see Mike moving straight in on a ready opponent, one with lead hand ready to snap the quick jab? No, you don't. Do you ever see Mike walk straight into a punch? No, you see him moving in, and often, right into what seems the very blast of oncoming strikes, but he is actually slipping forwards at the oblique, in perhaps the 10-20 degree approach angle, where we like to do our stuff.

Another great place to see fantastic aiki at work, even if they don't call it that, is Olympic Taekwondo. Go watch some, and watch the angles of the opponents moving in/out, angles and circles, all in the manipulation of mai ai. It's heady stuff. Happens so fast that it's difficult to see if you aren't trying to look at it specifically. Well, that and all the flying feet can be distracting.

I find it interesting that the kanji character for kuzushi illustrates a mountain falling on a house.

So "aiki" is just good footwork, timing and distancing now? Why are people flocking to Dan Harden if a Muay Thai, BJJ practitioner like Anderson Silva can utilize "aiki" at a high level in combat sports?

So "aiki" is just good footwork, timing and distancing now? Why are people flocking to Dan Harden if a Muay Thai, BJJ practitioner like Anderson Silva can utilize "aiki" at a high level in combat sports?

Because not everybody has what is needed to train like elite combat sports people do.

For me, a video showing some Aikido technique being demonstrated by an Aikido teacher, and then something that kinda looks like the same general thing being done in an MMA ring is a better argument for "see, Aikido incorporates some stuff from MMA" than the other way around.

Unless the fighter in the ring actually owns to Aikido training (is that the case?) then you don't have a real link between the two sets of things.

There is nothing technical that is unique to Aikido. The techniques derive from a few jujutsu systems which had them in common with many other Japanese systems, which had them in common with many other non-Japanese systems. The principals are not really unique either. To put it bluntly, if there is something we do that actually works in the ring, the guys who spend 40+ hours a week working with an MMA fighter who has negotiated x% of the cash prize of a fight if they win will likely figure it out and they will probably skip the step of asking someone who wears a hakama.

What makes Aikido unique, I think, is more along the lines of how it is trained and what it gives us in terms of philosophy. What we do on the mat versus what we don't do, what our process is for resolving questions, and just the flavor of the experience. Most of that stuff is utterly out of category for MMA and vice versa.

Maybe this will help explain my conceptual point. I wasn't trying to say that "aikido" was being demonstrated in MMA, I don't think it is. I do however think that "aiki" is there, and that "aiki" is all over the place in almost any/all high-level martial arts, even if it is not recognized as being so in that art.

Perhaps this is a good way to try to explain what I'm driving at. O-Sensei didn't "invent" aiki in aikido, he "found" it... if that makes sense. It was there, waiting, and he found it, thought it right and good, and built a system of principled reactions to aggressive physical actions which seemed to transcend the merely physical and go into less physical realms.

I am not one for the non-quantifiable, I apologize. However, I absolutely LOVES me some subtlety. There is little as un-subtle as a punch in the face, right? Well, one can block and punch back, or one can move out of the way, then punch back, or one can move and punch at the same time (increasing difficulty according to Bruce in his book, eh...).

But, what about simply moving slightly sideways the instant before the punch is even launched, thus frying the visual perception of the aggressor, and mentally shifting his balance so that his unconscious tells him that he can't throw the punch at all as he'll miss and maybe fall down? Subtle! Definition of Aiki at work, again, in my opinion.

if you are not countering the use of force against you with a force, but using evasion to deal with said aggressive force, is that not aiki? If so, then I stand by my initial examples.

I find it interesting that the kanji character for kuzushi illustrates a mountain falling on a house.

Maybe this will help explain my conceptual point. I wasn't trying to say that "aikido" was being demonstrated in MMA, I don't think it is. I do however think that "aiki" is there, and that "aiki" is all over the place in almost any/all high-level martial arts, even if it is not recognized as being so in that art.

Perhaps this is a good way to try to explain what I'm driving at. O-Sensei didn't "invent" aiki in aikido, he "found" it... if that makes sense. It was there, waiting, and he found it, thought it right and good, and built a system of principled reactions to aggressive physical actions which seemed to transcend the merely physical and go into less physical realms.

I am not one for the non-quantifiable, I apologize. However, I absolutely LOVES me some subtlety. There is little as un-subtle as a punch in the face, right? Well, one can block and punch back, or one can move out of the way, then punch back, or one can move and punch at the same time (increasing difficulty according to Bruce in his book, eh...).

But, what about simply moving slightly sideways the instant before the punch is even launched, thus frying the visual perception of the aggressor, and mentally shifting his balance so that his unconscious tells him that he can't throw the punch at all as he'll miss and maybe fall down? Subtle! Definition of Aiki at work, again, in my opinion.

if you are not countering the use of force against you with a force, but using evasion to deal with said aggressive force, is that not aiki? If so, then I stand by my initial examples.

Well I agree with you that aiki is not something Ueshiba invented. My understanding of aiki doesn't really go into the frame you have laid out, though. But that's just me. I do think that if you sit and watch MMA videos you will see fighters using accidental aiki occasionally.

Maybe this will help explain my conceptual point. I wasn't trying to say that "aikido" was being demonstrated in MMA, I don't think it is. I do however think that "aiki" is there, and that "aiki" is all over the place in almost any/all high-level martial arts, even if it is not recognized as being so in that art.

Perhaps this is a good way to try to explain what I'm driving at. O-Sensei didn't "invent" aiki in aikido, he "found" it... if that makes sense. It was there, waiting, and he found it, thought it right and good, and built a system of principled reactions to aggressive physical actions which seemed to transcend the merely physical and go into less physical realms.

I am not one for the non-quantifiable, I apologize. However, I absolutely LOVES me some subtlety. There is little as un-subtle as a punch in the face, right? Well, one can block and punch back, or one can move out of the way, then punch back, or one can move and punch at the same time (increasing difficulty according to Bruce in his book, eh...).

But, what about simply moving slightly sideways the instant before the punch is even launched, thus frying the visual perception of the aggressor, and mentally shifting his balance so that his unconscious tells him that he can't throw the punch at all as he'll miss and maybe fall down? Subtle! Definition of Aiki at work, again, in my opinion.

if you are not countering the use of force against you with a force, but using evasion to deal with said aggressive force, is that not aiki? If so, then I stand by my initial examples.

This highlights my fundamental confusions as the concept seems to be surrounded by ambiguity. Maybe it is misinterpretation on my part, but I have read it implied that "aiki" cannot be cultivated by simply training for years. Specific training methods need to be followed and they require guidance.

If this is true then how can someone who hasn't utilized those training methods or had any sort of guidance have developed "aiki" skills that can be utilized in combat sports?

Or is it simply that there is a baseline level of "aiki" that naturally develops as a result of years of training and the only way to expand those skills is through focused training methods similar to those taught by Dan Harden or Howard Popkin?

It's seems like there are two opposing definitions of aiki. A pedestrian non-opposition of force and something more esoteric.

So "aiki" is just good footwork, timing and distancing now? Why are people flocking to Dan Harden if a Muay Thai, BJJ practitioner like Anderson Silva can utilize "aiki" at a high level in combat sports?

This is where the conversation breaks down, because no one said that and if you aren't able to grasp that more is being discussed it becomes impossible to move forward.

Quote:

Richard Stevens wrote:

if a Muay Thai, BJJ practitioner like Anderson Silva can utilize "aiki" at a high level in combat sports?

Wow. Well...

There aren't many out there!

And trust that Anderson is on a level that far surpasses Dan Harden.

-Michael
"Through aiki we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately." - M. Mochizuki

Maybe it is misinterpretation on my part, but I have read it implied that "aiki" cannot be cultivated by simply training for years. Specific training methods need to be followed and they require guidance.

You read it correctly, but in the grand scheme of things this is really a minority viewpoint.

This highlights my fundamental confusions as the concept seems to be surrounded by ambiguity. Maybe it is misinterpretation on my part, but I have read it implied that "aiki" cannot be cultivated by simply training for years. Specific training methods need to be followed and they require guidance.

If this is true then how can someone who hasn't utilized those training methods or had any sort of guidance have developed "aiki" skills that can be utilized in combat sports?

Or is it simply that there is a baseline level of "aiki" that naturally develops as a result of years of training and the only way to expand those skills is through focused training methods similar to those taught by Dan Harden or Howard Popkin?

It's seems like there are two opposing definitions of aiki. A pedestrian non-opposition of force and something more esoteric.

Richard, et al;

The apparent dichotomy won't be resolved. The dichotomy exists even within Daito-ryu, the parent of most gendai aiki-budo. On one hand, Katsayuki Kondo paints aiki as a tactical force multiplier that relies on timing and atemi (source: What Is Aiki?). On the other hand, Yukioshi Sagawa is clear that it is a body skill primarily developed through solo exercises (source: Transparent Power).

One way to reconcile, if not resolve, the dichotomy is to consider timing and atemi as inherently in play, at the moment of touch, by someone adept at aiki as a body skill.

As for Anderson Silva, count me in as a big fan too. However, I'm curious how he would do in a static push test while relaxed in shizentai or on one foot against a fully committed pusher/uke, with the only point of contact between the parties being where the push is occurring. If those assigned the "aiki proficient" tag by those who've trained with them are known to use their aiki to profound effect whether in motion against motion (to Dan Richards' points in the OP) or motion-in-stillness against motion, e.g. Sagawa and Koichi Tohei in the past, Dan Harden and Howard Popkin (vetted as recently as a few days ago here on AikiWeb) in the present -- all proponents of solo exercises / aiki-taiso (as was O-Sensei) -- then you'd expect similar abilities in others assigned the tag. Well, maybe Steven Seagal has Silva doing torifune and circling a jo overhead, and it's just not documented on YouTube.

Quote:

Richard Stevens wrote:

Or is it simply that there is a baseline level of "aiki" that naturally develops as a result of years of training and the only way to expand those skills is through focused training methods similar to those taught by Dan Harden or Howard Popkin?

This has historically been Dan's take re: training in certain Daito-ryu lineages, e.g. Roppokai; with Howard as an exponent of developing a notable baseline of ability through waza training, and waza serving as a tool too burn in conditioning and skills best honed through solo training. Did Howard weigh in regarding this notion when you met him?

Most of Popkin's stuff was over my head, but it was amazing to see what he could do. Honestly, the biggest thing I got out of the seminar was how ineffective my Jujutsu is and how much "internal" work it is going to take to change that. To be honest, I'm not sure I have the desire to put in the required effort. A return to Judo or BJJ may be coming.

Most of Popkin's stuff was over my head, but it was amazing to see what he could do. Honestly, the biggest thing I got out of the seminar was how ineffective my Jujutsu is and how much "internal" work it is going to take to change that. To be honest, I'm not sure I have the desire to put in the required effort. A return to Judo or BJJ may be coming.

Yup. Daily work. Over the course of not a couple, but several years, to get to the point it's of practical value even in cooperative waza. But at least you know what the road map is to get there.

This is what maddens those of us who've made the effort to train with Dan, Mike Sigman, Sam Chin, and Aunkai folks when skeptics try to nitpick IP/IS training from an armchair. These IP/IS systems are comprehensive, fully formed methodologies with incredibly detailed protocols for using intent to achieve specific objectives for body conditioning. Someone who's found benefit in having a strength coach or personal fitness trainer would appreciate the level of detail in these IP/IS methods, even though these methods are nothing like conventional strength or fitness training.

So, if "kohai" like Howard and Bill Gleason, so to speak, are making people rethink how well they understand this "aiki" thing, yet they both readily admit they pale in comparison to Dan per se, and Dan is adamant that he personally has a long way to go -- then, well, just know the fence has a gate.

This is what maddens those of us who've made the effort to train with Dan, Mike Sigman, Sam Chin, and Aunkai folks when skeptics try to nitpick IP/IS training from an armchair. These IP/IS systems are comprehensive, fully formed methodologies with incredibly detailed protocols for using intent to achieve specific objectives for body conditioning. Someone who's found benefit in having a strength coach or personal fitness trainer would appreciate the level of detail in these IP/IS methods, even though these methods are nothing like conventional strength or fitness training.

I've been convinced that aiki is different from technique.

The technique is jujutsu (as Mochizuki considered aikido to be). There's no surprise that some cognates of these techniques show up throughout every fighting art. Timing and techniques can be extremely effective.

But aiki is not "timing and technique"--even blending, non-resistant technique.

I'm convinced that aiki actually is a body skill independent from movement.

"Aikido technique" is form.

Aiki is formless.

Interesting that, after all Dan Richards' explanations of what aiki, IP and IS are, after meeting Howard, he's thinking of going back to judo.

That is the meaning of "It has to be felt."

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

Personally, I can find the lessons best in the judo space than I can find way out there in aikido land. More physical sensation to learn from, I think. Best for this dumb guy.

I do have a question, though ... and not trying to be insulting. What is the benefit of learning how "not to be moved?"

This seems tacky/insulting to say, but "Best way block punch, you no be there." Right? It's always seemed best to me. I know there are certain jutsu branches out there that seem to specialize in "hit me and you can't hurt me" but that smacks of the arms race between armor-piercing vs. armor with armor-piercing always coming out on top.

If they miss, they miss.

OK, back to thread.

I find it interesting that the kanji character for kuzushi illustrates a mountain falling on a house.

This seems tacky/insulting to say, but "Best way block punch, you no be there." Right?

Right. The push tests aren't so you can stand there like a dummy in an attack situation. They demonstrate and develop a quality of connection which you then carry into your technique. Then when you move, you move because you decided to move on your own terms, not because your attacker made you move on theirs.

Personally, I can find the lessons best in the judo space than I can find way out there in aikido land. More physical sensation to learn from, I think. Best for this dumb guy.

I do have a question, though ... and not trying to be insulting. What is the benefit of learning how "not to be moved?"

This seems tacky/insulting to say, but "Best way block punch, you no be there." Right? It's always seemed best to me. I know there are certain jutsu branches out there that seem to specialize in "hit me and you can't hurt me" but that smacks of the arms race between armor-piercing vs. armor with armor-piercing always coming out on top.

If they miss, they miss.

OK, back to thread.

Learning "not to be moved" and "not moving" are two very different things.

The first is about stability, the second is about just standing in the way.

It seems to me that it's a no brainer that you'd want to have as much stability as you can when pushed or pulled in a martial situation. That doesn't mean that you can't move - can't go with a push or pull if you choose to do so - but even then you have to maintain your internal stability, or you're toast.

I do have a question, though ... and not trying to be insulting. What is the benefit of learning how "not to be moved?"
.

it's not about not moving. it's about managing force apply to you in static. it's the baby step. next up is to "not be moved" while moving. imagine you try to throw someone and they just move through you and you could not stop them, while they can strike you with so much power, with no wind up, and make bruce lee's one inch punch looked like child play. now, since you mentioned judo, what would you give for the ability to be able to get under anyone without even changing your body position/posture, like squating down below the other person?

it's hard for folks to see the link between IP/IS and the arts that they practice. so most folks said why bother. why would i learn that? why don't i learn to do another hips throw, another uchimata, another koshinage, another shihonage, and so on and so for? why would i learn thing that don't make much sense? it's tedious and boring works. most folks don't have the patient for it.

That's why nowaday, i told folk to not bother with IP/IS. they aren't fit for it.

btw, did i mention, everything about this is a test? like those old time masters, testing to see if the students have the right aptitude to learn the real stuffs or not.

The technique is jujutsu (as Mochizuki considered aikido to be). There's no surprise that some cognates of these techniques show up throughout every fighting art. Timing and techniques can be extremely effective.

But aiki is not "timing and technique"--even blending, non-resistant technique.

Ju is not technique either.

Quote:

David Orange wrote:

I'm convinced that aiki actually is a body skill independent from movement.

How would you describe it? What are its qualities? What distinguishes it from other skills?

Quote:

David Orange wrote:

"Aikido technique" is form.

Aiki is formless.

Agreed. Do you think the formless must always be manifested in form?

Quote:

David Orange wrote:

Interesting that, after all Dan Richards' explanations of what aiki, IP and IS are, after meeting Howard, he's thinking of going back to judo.

That is the meaning of "It has to be felt."

Unless you know something the rest of of don't, I think you might want to read the thread more carefully. Dan Richards started the thread. Richard Stevens is the guy who is thinking about going back to judo.

-Michael
"Through aiki we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately." - M. Mochizuki

As for Anderson Silva, count me in as a big fan too. However, I'm curious how he would do in a static push test while relaxed in shizentai or on one foot against a fully committed pusher/uke, with the only point of contact between the parties being where the push is occurring. If those assigned the "aiki proficient" tag by those who've trained with them are known to use their aiki to profound effect whether in motion against motion (to Dan Richards' points in the OP) or motion-in-stillness against motion, e.g. Sagawa and Koichi Tohei in the past, Dan Harden and Howard Popkin (vetted as recently as a few days ago here on AikiWeb) in the present -- all proponents of solo exercises / aiki-taiso (as was O-Sensei) -- then you'd expect similar abilities in others assigned the tag. Well, maybe Steven Seagal has Silva doing torifune and circling a jo overhead, and it's just not documented on YouTube.

… that confuse the situation.

Do you think Anderson Silva gives a shit about static push tests? Can you see what level he has achieved? It's rare amongst fighters and martial artists. Period. Do you think he does it simply with technique?

And in a very real sense, yielding is the only strategy that works 100% of the time.

Like John said, "If they miss, they miss."

And no, grandmas can't do it.

-Michael
"Through aiki we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately." - M. Mochizuki

I wasn't, in particular, stability should be a no brainer - yielding or not.

There's nothing in the quote you cited that says moving or yielding is a bad idea. Nobody talking about push tests has ever said that moving or yielding is a bad idea. Give up the straw man.

Anderson Silva is great - that doesn't mean that he's automatically good at everything. There are plenty of great fighters around who use no internal methods at all, nothing wrong with that, everybody chooses their own strategies.

I wasn't, in particular, stability should be a no brainer - yielding or not.

There's nothing in the quote you cited that says moving or yielding is a bad idea. Nobody talking about push tests has ever said that moving or yielding is a bad idea. Give up the straw man.

Anderson Silva is great - that doesn't mean that he's automatically good at everything. There are plenty of great fighters around who use no internal methods at all, nothing wrong with that, everybody chooses their own strategies.

Best,

Chris

Of course!

I'm not sure anyone is disputing anything you just said. I certainly am not.

I think what consistutes "internal" and certainly "aiki" is not well defined and may be up for debate... but maybe not!

No straw man here... I didn't say anyone said anything. I just said it confuses the converstaion. I'm trying to get to the nitty-gritty. And my guess is we all have much more in common than we have different.

But that's just me!

-Michael
"Through aiki we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately." - M. Mochizuki